TR>John, you can't be charged in court with school policy unless that school
TR>policy is public law. There is no jail time, misdemeanor or felony, for
TR>chewing gum in class. This is the difference between school policy and 
publi
TR>law.
And I never said someone would be charged in court with violating school
policy, At least not a court of law.  But they are still convicted and
sentenced.  But it's before a SCHOOL BOARD, not a court.
My point is that as an adult who is no longer in school, I have
protection from the law, I have the right to a FAIR and SPEEDY trial
before an impartial judge and a jury. and I am not guilty, till the
judge bangs the gavel.
These rights are guarenteed the accused in a Court of Law.
I think they should also be guarenteed to a student in school "court"
IN school "court" you have basically, no rights at all  It's "Bend over
and smile" as it were.
TR>You are correct. However, most school districts have hearings or appeals
TR>which can and are heard by the school board. Most school board meetings 
re
TR>also public meetings with their agenda listed. Many school board meetings 
ar
TR>televised, just like the city council meetings in many places. The biggest
TR>difference between school policies and public laws are the tests of time 
and
TR>the courts.
Still... In the end..... The school board is not bound by such little
bits as the constution... If they decide to expell a student for
"pushing drugs" when all he gave away is pure sugar... They can do it.
(Of course I've also heard smart mouthed lawyer types (not all lawyers)
who could darn near convince you that I killed Kennedy (I was in high
school gym calss here in Michigan at the time)
TR>Schools are responsible for the welfare of children to and from school in
TR>most jurisdictions. As a result, they can extend school rules to the bus
TR>stop, the school bus, the walk to and from school, the lunch hour, etc.
However to disipline a student for a traffic violation on the public
road, when the police have already given him a ticket for said
violation, Is to put the student in double jepordy.  Another
constutional no-no and exactly what happened in the case I was thinking
fo
TR>Again, applying a school rule is different than applying a public law. 
his
TR>is nothing new at all, rather the norm for most portions of the country.
That's the problem... I feel that school rules should be bound by the
same constraints that public laws are.  If feel the accused should be
offered the same rights as a public accused suspect.
The idea of a school who makes their own rules, then proceeds to enforce
them on innocenet students who have, in fact, not broken any rules....
Well I'd like to say it's unthinkable... But I know better
Another case.  in the news.  The one of the 3rd grader who was suspended
for giving a girl a kiss.
School rule:  NO UNWANTED SEXUAL CONTACT  (never mind the question of
"is a kiss ALWAYS sexual contact for the moment)
The young lady in the story freely admitted that she asked the boy to
kiss her.  IN SO MANY WORDS
Yet he was still suspended for "unwanted sexual contact"
This is an example of a rule and a school board, way off the deep end.
 * SLMR 2.1a * I have a new philosophy. I'm only going to dread one day
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.03H1
---------------